Department of not making corrections

On July 16, Andrew Bolt gave us this:

What consensus? The American Physical Society reports:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

However, this wasn't the opion of the American Physical Society, but rather that of Jeffrey Marque, one editor of an APS newsletter. In the next issue Marque retracted:

Our editorial comments in the July 2008 issue include the following statement: "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution." In fact, we have not polled any scientific community (e.g., the climate research community, the physics community, or the general science community) as to the extent of its consensus regarding human-activity-caused global warming, and we apologize for making such a remark for which we do not have supporting data. We now do know that, in addition to the American Physical Society, the following scientific organizations have issued statements and/or reports in support of the IPCC's main conclusion concerning the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions in global warming: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

So what did Bolt do? Did he post a correction?

Of course not. Instead he just repeated the erroneous claim. Bolt on Nov 5:

Er, what consensus?

The tide is slowly turning:

...In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

Tags
Categories

More like this

The Internet makes it waaaay to easy to be stupid. Over at my other blog, a collective effort assembled by the Weather Channel, I write exclusively about climate issues. Each of my posts and just about all my colleague's posts dealing with the subject assume that climate change is real and that…
Thanks to Drudge, all the right-wing blogs have been touting a story alleging the American Physical Society has reversed its stance on global warming. Joe Romm has the sordid details. The basis for the story is an article published in an APS newsletter (not jornal) by our old friend Christoper…
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.Objection: The American Physical Society with tens of thousands of member scientists no longer believes that the science of global warming is conclusive. So…
(Updated January 2017 by Dr. Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute) Scientific understanding of the role of humans in influencing and altering the global climate has been evolving for over a century. That understanding is now extremely advanced, combining hundreds of years of observations of many…

Facts that do not comport with the ideological worldview don't exist, Tim. They don't fit the mental frame. They aren't facts. They are "facts".

Acknowledging these as facts would destroy Bolt's self-identity. Ergo, there is no need for correction, retraction, clarification, what have you.

Best,

D

Bolt is a one-eyed media hack, simple as.

Retractions lack truthiness.

By James Haughton (not verified) on 05 Nov 2008 #permalink

Retractions lack truthiness.

He he he.

Read anything by Bolt and it's normally turgid lies.

Guess who else is once again peddling recycled dishonest denialist crap. This particular steaming pile is bordering on the edge of libel against Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

WotWot (7)

I think I've heard that tired old argument about the funding trail before (!). Duffy is really clutching at straws. And once again exposes his ignorance of the difference between climate and weather, and trend lines.

I heard Duffy interview Lindzen on the ABC a few weeks back. Lindzen chortled his way through a soft interogatory knowing he was amongst friends. He's morbidly obsessed with the funding his colleagues are getting for their climate research. And Duffy is happy to carry his bags.

Lindzen's bitterness is related to his peers' rejection (no doubt through funded research) of his beloved "iris" theory.

I don'ty know what Duffy's problem is. Some kind of thickness.

By John Armour (not verified) on 07 Nov 2008 #permalink

I think we're seeing the desperate end game of the denialists, now that the incoming US administration accepts the science and has a rather more ambitious mitigation policy than our timid Australian government. I expect they'll soon move on to the next phase (as has the Turnbull opposition), namely seeking to de-fang mitigation policy through delay and endless argument for special treatment of the worst offenders. There will be generous funding for makers of docos purporting to show how mitigation measures are in fact bad for the environment and for anti-wind farm action groups and the like. Bolt and Duffy meanwhile will come to occupy the lucrative niche left vacant by the late Paddy McGuinness - quaint curmudgeons whose writing tickles the nostalgia of readers hankering after the simple verities they remember holding hegemonic sway back in the 20th century.

"Rajenda Pachauri's recent Sydney lecture suggests that in this relatively new field, inconvenient truths to the contrary are not welcome."

Can't stand denialist crap pedalers like Duffy. Just too thick to understand consensus.

By spangled drongo (not verified) on 08 Nov 2008 #permalink

re: #8
I think Lindzen's attitude long preceded his "Iris" hypothesis, which at least had the merit of being interesting and worth considering, although it turned out to be refuted fairly quickly.

Here is Lindzen vs Schneider, refereed by Prinn, in 1990.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink

Consider how rare it is to find an Internet site where people can learn about evolution. Most of them fill up with crap and misleading red herrings from the small vociferous denial crowd.

Same as the Internet's sites on climate change.

Perhaps teaching Intelligent Moderation would be useful.

Even "Scienceblogs" let alone sites like Seed are mostly full of blather from people trying to stop discussion they dislike.

By Hank Roberts (not verified) on 09 Nov 2008 #permalink